No it didnt take anyone off the hook. They only found out the uploader was an agent of Prenda after the fact. Which means they thought he wasn't before hand, when they were downloading. Therefore there is no implied license or implied permission. They would have reasonably thought it was unauthorized, yet they continued to download it anyway, which means they knowingly chose to download it illegally. What prenda did may have been shady, and the letter only confirms that they did it, but it doesnt let anyone off the hook unless they KNEW or BELIEVED it was Prenda (or their agent) behind the upload before they started downloading it. and no one had any reason to believe that until after the fact.
the summary is wrong, and once again the editors are stupid for letting it through.
Unless the downloaders knew that the original uploader was Prenda, or the uploader advertised itself as PRenda (or a representative), there is no implied license.
A private party acting as the agent provactuer is a bit of a grey area, but generally speaking, given that the there was no reason to think the distribution was authorized, the downloaders still knowingly chose to break the law.
you can if they dont know or have any reason to believe that you're an authorized source for the files, and instead have every reason to believe that you are NOT. and if they then still continue to download, they are knowingly choosing to break the law. normally such false flag operations are left to the authorities (police). the area turns grey when its a private entity doing it. but generally the persons caught are still knowingly choosing to break the law. and that i think is the key: no one had any reason to believe "sharkmp4" (or whatever) was an authorized agent distributing the files.
Actually established law runs pretty much counter to what you said. you're speaking about Intent as an offense in itself (Intent to Kill, etc), not Intent as one of the components in defining the crime and determining whether it's been committed. dont confuse the two. its just like the undercover cop posing as a prostitute arresting you for solicitation. you still committed the crime, even though the cop was (seemining) going to assist you in doing so. you still committed the crime. you knew it was illegal, and you intended to do it anyway and would have done so even if it wasnt a cop. ie you knowingly chose to break the law.
same thing here. the downloaders did NOT know it was really Prenda. They had no reason to think they were doing anything other than illegally downloading a file via torrent. And they chose to do so. They chose to break the law, regardless of whether Prenda was the one distributing it or not. If Prenda had revelaed themselves as the source of the download before the download occured, then the downloaders would have a defense. But Prenda did not, and they had no reason whatsoever to believe it was a legal authorized source for the files. They knowingly chose to broke the law.
yes but you KNOW that he is the source, that he is a LEGITIMATE source, and that he is ALLOWING it to be done this way.
It's not because torrent = illegal. No one is making that claim.
It's because Intent matters.
These downloaders had no reason to believe it was a legitimate and authorized source, and on the contrary had every reason to be believe it is both illegitimate and unauthorized, which means they had clear intent to knowingly break the law.
unfortunately that analogy doesnt really work because the stranger had no intent to break any laws, and can see that the person handing him a book is the owner.
technically, these users downloading the torrented files were intending to do so illegally, and knew full well what they were doing, and had no reason whatsoever to believe their source was Prenda giving them legitimate copies instead of someone else assisting them in illicitly downloading files.
It's the classic example of why honeypots/stings are legal, and only lose that status as when the honeypot reveals itself as a legal source and says "nah, its ok go ahead", and THEN turns around and slaps on the cuffs.
thats an important part of considering of cost, even for gasoline cars. if you normally spend ~1000$ on gas a year, and own the car for 10 years (very reasonable assumption, and msot cars go to 15 years or more easily), then thats 10k$ of money saved, making the real price of a 60k tesla equivalent to a 50k car from someone else.
or take my my buddy, who drives his truck all over town, and he gases up far more often than I do (i drive a dinky little Kia), and drives more too, to the tune of ~3k$ a year in gas. so for him a 10yr cost of gas is ~30k dollars. so if he were to replace his truck with a Tesla (bit far fetched since he actually needs the truck for truck things), now that 60k tesla is equivalent to a 30k gas car.
im not sure i would call taking advantage of engine placement choice "gaming the system". that makes it sound like cheating, which it isnt. its simply smart engineering.
in what way does the roof ever need to absorb energy?? the only time the roof needs to do anything is when the car rolls over, in which case its now supporting the weight of the car.
having even a little bit of give means crushing your empty AC skull.
so no, the roof absolutely does NOT need to absorb any energy.
in fact, if you look, the majority of the passenger compartment is designed to be fairly rigid. all the crumple zones and energy absorbtion engineering is placed outside the passenger compartment.
in a rollover situation, where the roof and its pillars are now supporting the weight of the car, unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain. which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain. which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head. stupid AC.
exactly. email has always been fairly nsecure. but it wasnt a problem, because someone would have to "target" you specifically. and that means warrants, and court orders (warrantless crap not withstanding, that's also a recent development, but a seperate if related issue). now, now they actually can just record EVERYTHING. and they can just sift through it whenever they want to find "something". and find "soemthing" they will. its like an arranged "hunt" on private land with a 30 foot high fence; "something" will be found, no matter what.
nothing and no one is safe from this sort of surveillance. it takes crime and punishment and justice from being an investigation of actual bad person doing actual bad things, and turns it into a lottery where we say "who shall we prosecute today" ?
this illustrates perfectly where economies of scale can create a problem where one didnt used to exist before.
before it was impossible to think something like the NSA scandal could actually happen. the sheer numbers. impossible. thus not a threat.
but then technology happened. and it because possible, but was very very difficult to do. there were conspiracy theories that it could be done, but realistic analysis said it would be too impractical. its just not a threat.
fast forward to today...its not only possible..but its easy. and it happened. what used to be impossible to comprehend, to credit as a threat, is now real and happening. and now its a threat. now its a problem.
i'm not sure im explaining it well, but the above post states it pretty well too: streets arent really secure or private, but if the Gestapo or Stasi or KGB or DHS actually had enough people to be on every corner checking every person, all of a sudden it actually becomes a problem, a threat, that cannot be allowed to pass.
why? because we actually execute so few people in the US. death row inmates are more likely to die of old age, and ironically have a longer life expectency than those given the big LWP (life without parole...in large part due to death row inmates being held seperately from the rest of the population).
something tells me you've never worked a meat department. 1: you dont just go to a side of side and cut off a steak 2: it's not held as a side. it comes in vac bags of individual muscles (ribs, chuck, tenderloin, flank, shoulder, rump, loin, etc), each of which can only be cut into a handful of "cuts", such as flank, ribeye, new york strip, sirloin, etc. 3: there's a time limit on that "side of beef" whether you cut it or not. vac bags the muscles come in may last a bit longer than the prepared steaks on display, but thats due to the higher quality packaging (and some meat departments use vac sealers), and even so doesnt extend life a whole lot. the meat is only sellable for about 21 days (numbers may be rusty...been awhile) even in a vac bag. 4: most meat counters do custom cuts (speaking of thickness) on demand, and vary the cuts on display as well by a quarter to an inch or more, to give a selection to the customer. that is, outside of Walmart which does all processing at a central plant, rather than in store.
Slashdot Mirror
No it didnt take anyone off the hook. They only found out the uploader was an agent of Prenda after the fact. Which means they thought he wasn't before hand, when they were downloading. Therefore there is no implied license or implied permission. They would have reasonably thought it was unauthorized, yet they continued to download it anyway, which means they knowingly chose to download it illegally. What prenda did may have been shady, and the letter only confirms that they did it, but it doesnt let anyone off the hook unless they KNEW or BELIEVED it was Prenda (or their agent) behind the upload before they started downloading it. and no one had any reason to believe that until after the fact.
the summary is wrong, and once again the editors are stupid for letting it through.
Unless the downloaders knew that the original uploader was Prenda, or the uploader advertised itself as PRenda (or a representative), there is no implied license.
A private party acting as the agent provactuer is a bit of a grey area, but generally speaking, given that the there was no reason to think the distribution was authorized, the downloaders still knowingly chose to break the law.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=701
not the same thing.
you can if they dont know or have any reason to believe that you're an authorized source for the files, and instead have every reason to believe that you are NOT. and if they then still continue to download, they are knowingly choosing to break the law. normally such false flag operations are left to the authorities (police). the area turns grey when its a private entity doing it. but generally the persons caught are still knowingly choosing to break the law. and that i think is the key: no one had any reason to believe "sharkmp4" (or whatever) was an authorized agent distributing the files.
Actually established law runs pretty much counter to what you said. you're speaking about Intent as an offense in itself (Intent to Kill, etc), not Intent as one of the components in defining the crime and determining whether it's been committed. dont confuse the two. its just like the undercover cop posing as a prostitute arresting you for solicitation. you still committed the crime, even though the cop was (seemining) going to assist you in doing so. you still committed the crime. you knew it was illegal, and you intended to do it anyway and would have done so even if it wasnt a cop. ie you knowingly chose to break the law.
same thing here. the downloaders did NOT know it was really Prenda. They had no reason to think they were doing anything other than illegally downloading a file via torrent. And they chose to do so. They chose to break the law, regardless of whether Prenda was the one distributing it or not. If Prenda had revelaed themselves as the source of the download before the download occured, then the downloaders would have a defense. But Prenda did not, and they had no reason whatsoever to believe it was a legal authorized source for the files. They knowingly chose to broke the law.
yes but you KNOW that he is the source, that he is a LEGITIMATE source, and that he is ALLOWING it to be done this way.
It's not because torrent = illegal. No one is making that claim.
It's because Intent matters.
These downloaders had no reason to believe it was a legitimate and authorized source, and on the contrary had every reason to be believe it is both illegitimate and unauthorized, which means they had clear intent to knowingly break the law.
unfortunately that analogy doesnt really work because the stranger had no intent to break any laws, and can see that the person handing him a book is the owner.
technically, these users downloading the torrented files were intending to do so illegally, and knew full well what they were doing, and had no reason whatsoever to believe their source was Prenda giving them legitimate copies instead of someone else assisting them in illicitly downloading files.
It's the classic example of why honeypots/stings are legal, and only lose that status as when the honeypot reveals itself as a legal source and says "nah, its ok go ahead", and THEN turns around and slaps on the cuffs.
its that whole "intent to break the law" thing.
uglier girls, lower (non existent) production values, lower quality performances...no thanks.
mod up
dont neglect the gas you dont have to buy.
thats an important part of considering of cost, even for gasoline cars. if you normally spend ~1000$ on gas a year, and own the car for 10 years (very reasonable assumption, and msot cars go to 15 years or more easily), then thats 10k$ of money saved, making the real price of a 60k tesla equivalent to a 50k car from someone else.
or take my my buddy, who drives his truck all over town, and he gases up far more often than I do (i drive a dinky little Kia), and drives more too, to the tune of ~3k$ a year in gas. so for him a 10yr cost of gas is ~30k dollars. so if he were to replace his truck with a Tesla (bit far fetched since he actually needs the truck for truck things), now that 60k tesla is equivalent to a 30k gas car.
umm, 80k is the higher end iteration 2 with all the options and extras.
the low end does indeed start around 55k.
havent done much 4 wheeling have ye?
also your numbers seem somewhat made up.
im not sure i would call taking advantage of engine placement choice "gaming the system". that makes it sound like cheating, which it isnt. its simply smart engineering.
stupid AC calling the kettle black.
in what way does the roof ever need to absorb energy?? the only time the roof needs to do anything is when the car rolls over, in which case its now supporting the weight of the car.
having even a little bit of give means crushing your empty AC skull.
so no, the roof absolutely does NOT need to absorb any energy.
in fact, if you look, the majority of the passenger compartment is designed to be fairly rigid.
all the crumple zones and energy absorbtion engineering is placed outside the passenger compartment.
stupid AC.
sorrly, replied to wrong AC
in a rollover situation, where the roof and its pillars are now supporting the weight of the car, unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain. which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain.
which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
exactly. email has always been fairly nsecure. but it wasnt a problem, because someone would have to "target" you specifically. and that means warrants, and court orders (warrantless crap not withstanding, that's also a recent development, but a seperate if related issue). now, now they actually can just record EVERYTHING. and they can just sift through it whenever they want to find "something". and find "soemthing" they will. its like an arranged "hunt" on private land with a 30 foot high fence; "something" will be found, no matter what.
nothing and no one is safe from this sort of surveillance. it takes crime and punishment and justice from being an investigation of actual bad person doing actual bad things, and turns it into a lottery where we say "who shall we prosecute today" ?
this illustrates perfectly where economies of scale can create a problem where one didnt used to exist before.
before it was impossible to think something like the NSA scandal could actually happen. the sheer numbers. impossible. thus not a threat.
but then technology happened. and it because possible, but was very very difficult to do. there were conspiracy theories that it could be done, but realistic analysis said it would be too impractical. its just not a threat.
fast forward to today...its not only possible..but its easy. and it happened. what used to be impossible to comprehend, to credit as a threat, is now real and happening. and now its a threat. now its a problem.
i'm not sure im explaining it well, but the above post states it pretty well too: streets arent really secure or private, but if the Gestapo or Stasi or KGB or DHS actually had enough people to be on every corner checking every person, all of a sudden it actually becomes a problem, a threat, that cannot be allowed to pass.
not exactly talking about people with estates or wills. unless you want to count "my cigarette stash, and the toilet distillery"
why? because we actually execute so few people in the US. death row inmates are more likely to die of old age, and ironically have a longer life expectency than those given the big LWP (life without parole...in large part due to death row inmates being held seperately from the rest of the population).
something tells me you've never worked a meat department.
1: you dont just go to a side of side and cut off a steak
2: it's not held as a side. it comes in vac bags of individual muscles (ribs, chuck, tenderloin, flank, shoulder, rump, loin, etc), each of which can only be cut into a handful of "cuts", such as flank, ribeye, new york strip, sirloin, etc.
3: there's a time limit on that "side of beef" whether you cut it or not. vac bags the muscles come in may last a bit longer than the prepared steaks on display, but thats due to the higher quality packaging (and some meat departments use vac sealers), and even so doesnt extend life a whole lot. the meat is only sellable for about 21 days (numbers may be rusty...been awhile) even in a vac bag.
4: most meat counters do custom cuts (speaking of thickness) on demand, and vary the cuts on display as well by a quarter to an inch or more, to give a selection to the customer. that is, outside of Walmart which does all processing at a central plant, rather than in store.